Search

English-language reporting on the continuing difficulties in accessing Evusheld reflects the marginalization of immunocompromised people in discussions about the public policy response to Covid-19. Moreover, the lack of available data on global Evusheld access, particularly in low-income countries, has emerged as a key form of nonknowledge that must be redressed within public health research. Through examining how knowledge about domestic and global barriers to Evusheld access circulates, and does not circulate, within The New York Times , this paper identifies a case study of the social production of ignorance related to a key issue in the Covid-19 pandemic. Drawing on science and technology studies, the history of science and media studies, I situate these trends in the context of longer explanatory histories of nonknowledge. First, through a critical discourse analysis of the New York Times' reporting on Evusheld access in the U.S., I trace the individualizing framework evident in many articles to longstanding trends in reporting on health and illness, and to the structural marginalization of immunocompromised people in U.S. Secondly, I argue that the near-total absence of reporting on Evusheld access in low-income countries is consistent with the longstanding structural neglect of health crises in the global south. • New York Times coverage of preventative treatment Evusheld rarely discusses access barriers. • Access barriers discussed are largely logistical rather than structural. • The perspectives of immunocompromised people are rarely included in Times articles on Evusheld. • Failure to include voices from impacted communities contributes to agnogenesis. • Centering the perspectives of constituencies most impacted by a health crisis will advance health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Close oversight by a Community Coordinator, relationships built with community partners, and the use of telehealth were creative solutions used by the Infant Toddler Court Teams during COVID-19 to support timely access to services. • This study builds on a companion paper that examined receipt and access to child health services at multiple Infant-Toddler Court Teams prior to and during the first year of the pandemic and details the challenges faced and the solutions identified by ITCT partners to support access to child services in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic within the US. • Understanding the challenges and solutions faced by the Infant-Toddler Court Team Community Coordinators during COVID-19 will be important for future pandemics or crises that impact care for child welfare involved children. This qualitative study examines Infant-Toddler Court Teams' (ITCT) responses to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the accessibility and timeliness of services for children involved with an Infant Toddler Court Team (ITCT) within the United States. ITCTs utilize collaborative practice to improve, align, and integrate systems and build community capacity to improve outcomes for very young children and their families. This study reports findings from 350 transcripts of community partner interviews and an analysis of written case notes from ITCT Community Coordinators related to more than 700 instances of child service needs. We describe challenges faced and solutions and innovations developed by ITCTs to support and maintain child health services during the first year of the pandemic, as well as findings related to challenges associated with other types of services that reduced accessibility and timeliness. Understanding the challenges experienced and solutions developed can provide the child welfare field with insight and guidance on how to approach disruptions in care in the future and the persistent lack of service providers for court involved families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Delta-Omicron wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (Wave 4) in the United States occurred in Fall of 2021 through Spring of 2022. Although vaccinations were widely available, this was the deadliest period to date in the U.S., and the toll was especially high in rural areas, exacerbating an existing rural mortality penalty. This paper uses county-level multilevel regression models and publicly available data for 47 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. We describe differences in COVID-19 case and mortality rates across the rural-urban continuum during Wave 4 of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a progressive modeling approach, we evaluate the relative contribution of a range of explanatory factors for the rural disadvantage we observe, including: pre-pandemic population health composition, vaccination rates, political partisanship, socioeconomic composition, access to broadband internet rate, and primary care physicians per capita. Results show that rural counties had higher observed burdens of cases and deaths in Wave 4 compared to more urban counties. The most remote rural counties had Wave 4 COVID-19 mortality rates 52% higher than the most urban counties. Older age composition, worse pre-pandemic population health, lower vaccination rates, higher share of votes cast for Donald Trump in the 2020 Presidential election, and lower socioeconomic composition completely explained the rural disadvantage in reported COVID-19 case rates in Wave 4, and accounting for these factors reversed the observed rural disadvantage in COVID-19 mortality. In models of mortality rate, Trump vote share had the largest effect size, followed by the percentage of the population age 50 or older, the poverty rate, the pre-pandemic mortality rate, the share of residents with a 4-year college degree, and the vaccination rate. These findings add to a growing literature describing the disproportionate toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on rural America, highlighting the combined effect of multiple sources of rural disadvantage. • Rural counties had higher case and death rates in the Delta-Omicron wave. • Rural counties had up to 51% more deaths per capita than the most urban counties. • Age, health, and SES composition partially explained the rural disadvantage. • Vaccination and Trump vote share were separate factors in the rural disadvantage. • Multiple sources of disadvantage combined in rural areas to produce poor outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A major challenge in managing disasters during a pandemic is assessing the inequalities in society and protecting vulnerable people. The objective of this paper is to geographically understand the discrimination and inequality against minorities by COVID-19. This study designed a locational discrimination index (LDI) to measure COVID-19 discrimination against minorities at county-level in the US. LDI is the difference between the death proportion of a minority and the proportion of a minority's population. If LDI >0 is significant, COVID-19 discrimination is identified against a minority in a county. I further developed a locational minority inequality index (LMII), and LMII of a minority is directly quantified by comparing its LDI with the LDI of the majority population (i.e., the White population in the US). If LMII>0 is significant, a significant health inequality is confirmed against a minority in a county. In the US, I found 157 counties with significant discrimination against Black people, and 103 counties with significant inequality against Black people; 58 counties with significant discrimination against the American Indian population, but 38 counties with significant inequality against the American Indian population; 17 counties with significant discrimination against Native Hawaiians, but only 8 counties with significant inequality; for Hispanic people, 47 counties had significant discrimination, and 64 counties had significant inequality; for Asians, 7 counties had significant discrimination, but 28 had significant inequality. LDI, LMII, and the thematic mapping provide novel insight into COVID-19 discrimination and inequalities. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time anyone has quantitatively and statistically defined and mapped COVID-19 discrimination and inequality against minorities at a county-level across the US. Based on this, governments and communities could make efficient decisions and take effective action to addressthe significant discrimination and inequality against Black, American Indian, Native Hawaiian, Hispanic, and Asian people, which can be applied to other pandemics or public health disasters in the USA or other countries. • The significant discrimination and inequality of COVID-19 are tested and mapped. • Locational discrimination index to quantify minority's vulnerability is developed. • Locational minority inequality index is developed to further compare inequality in vulnerability. • COVID-19 caused significant spatial inequality between minorities and the white population in the USA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research in several countries shows higher Covid-19 vaccination willingness and uptake among physicians than nurses. Our paper aims to characterize and explain this difference. In early 2021, we surveyed 1047 U.S. primary care professionals who served adolescents, ages 11–17. The national sample included physicians (71%) as well as nurses and advanced practice providers. The survey assessed the three domains of the Increasing Vaccination Model: thinking and feeling , social processes , and direct behavior change. Covid-19 vaccine uptake was higher among physicians than among nurses and advanced practice providers (91% vs. 76%, p <.05). Overall, in the thinking and feeling domain, higher confidence in Covid-19 vaccination, higher perceived susceptibility to the disease, and stronger anticipated regret were associated with higher vaccine uptake (all p <.05). In the social processes domain, perceiving more positive social norms for Covid-19 vaccination, receiving recommendations to get the vaccine, and wanting to help others were associated with higher vaccine uptake (all p <.05). In the direct behavior change domain, receiving an invitation to get the vaccine and better access to vaccination were associated with higher uptake (both p <.05). Of these variables, most of the thinking and feeling and social processes variables mediated the association of training with vaccine uptake. Physicians had higher Covid-19 vaccine uptake than nurses and advanced practice providers, corresponding with their more supportive vaccine beliefs and social experiences. Efforts to reach the remaining unvaccinated cohort can build on these findings. • Covid-19 vaccine uptake among advanced practice providers and nurses was lower than in physicians. • Vaccine confidence and social norms explained the difference in Covid-19 vaccine uptake. • Recommendations from employers and providers suppressed some differences in vaccination. • Behavioral nudges – invitation and incentives – were associated with more vaccine uptake. • Offers directions and contexts for future vaccination interventions and programs in the U.S. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]